This already happens with Visa versus American Express credit cards. There are a number of businesses and events (Olympics for one) that only take Visa. I only carry an AX card and don't carry lots of cash. I don't have the right to make a business accept my form of payment. I just don't use that business or start carrying Visa/MC.
If I don't want to use Passport, then I will have to choose online games that don't require it. Thats life.
p.s. Some businesses also won't accept travelers checks.
I like companies that only charge for their current version and make previous versions available for free. I believe this is good for the consumer and it pushes companies to release upgrades that fix major problems and/or provide significant improvements. Why? Because they are competing with their own free software.
Yes. I have the right to make a purchase with cash. I don't have to use a credit card or check. I believe you can still purchase Postal Money Orders with cash and no id. And even though a clerk may ask to see my Drivers License to purchase liquour or tobbaco products, they don't record that information.
But the question is does the government have a right to know who I am at its will, or only when there is a reasonable belief I have broken a law. It seems to me that the government is trying to make me identify myself even when there is no belief I have commmited a crime.
If (and I don't believe it is true) the majority of politicians are dishonest, then they are that way because the majority of the voters don't care. What most voters do care about is how many federal dollars are spent in their district.
When people complain about dishonest politicians they almost always exclude their own representives. Remember all politics are local.
The main thing I fear about this centralized database is all the civil servent drones needed to run it. I fear the bored civil servant running the software, more then some MIB scenario.
Also remember it is illegal to lie to a Federal employee. But it is real hard to prove I deliberately filed out that form incorrectly. Misspell your name, transpose a number or two. Verifying this large of a database won't be trivial. Look the IRS can't track the false number of dependants people were claiming on thier 1040s from year to year until they required a SSN. After that the population of the US dropped a little. Just remember to be consistent in your false information.
Larry has already stated that the software is free, but maintenance isn't. The difference is about 90%,that is if the 1st year license was $100,000 then the 2nd year maintenance is $10,000. Maintence includes free upgrades. So my question is how much is the maintenance for this free software?
If you can switch between RDBMs so trivially then you have not optimized your queries. All RDBMs vendors extend SQL to allow you to optimize your queries to work with their database engine. For instance Oracle allows you to put in hints, also Oracle had a bug where certain embedded comments crashed the parser but SQL Server, MySQL, etc, work just fine. PostgreSQL has a slightly different implementation of aliases then Oracle and on and on and on. So yes, if you implement a trivial database you can switch between all the vendors in a trivial manner. But when have hundreds of different queries that are joining multiple tables and searching through millions of records, you better be optimizing to the Vendors implementation.
Re:Point for Point Comments and criticism of O'Rei
on
Freedom or Power Redux
·
· Score: 1
Interesting. You start off by attacking O'Reilly by implying he is a racist. Well, I have read a similiar story that was based out of Europe and did not involve a "colored" person. So this argument doesn't convince me he is a racist, and anyway whether he is or isn't is not germane to the argument.
Hmm. AIDS research and software for the masses. I just don't see the connection. Actually anybody can use the results of AIDS research paid for by the US government. I don't see any argument or proof that the US government developed the drugs and then gave those formulas to private companies. It seems to me the drug companies took the basic research and developed the drugs and are taking the finicial risks (lawsuits and such).
I believe it is silly to trust RMS. He claims that his exercise of power is good, but everybody elses exercise of power is bad. Maybe it is, but I don't have the freedom to do what I want with GPLed software. And RMS has shown that not only will he try and enforce the GPL, he has tried to make people give ownership of software they've created to the FSF. I don't trust benovelent dictators.
The original purpose of copyright law was to encourage people to make public their knowledge, knowing they could profit exclusively for a limited time. This knowledge would then become public domain. The problem know is this limited time keeps getting extended. That is what O'Reilly is arguing.
Your last argument about religion is just plain stupid. O'Reilly is not saying we should destroy knowledge. He is saying we need to keep working on methods that will make more knowledge available. Look to ACT and how they release GNAT. They control the source until the point they are ready to release a stable version. You are free to change that source and to make suggestions on how to make it better. They also sell support where they will release specific patches and early fixes to you before the next release. These patches and fixes will be released to the public. Some people don't like this, but it works to get out a stable Ada compiler and makes my employer happy, knowing that they can get fixes now, not when somebody in the world decides to fix it.
The idea behind copyright law is that we agree as a society that
the benefit we derive from having Authors and Inventors share their ideas
is worth more than the cost of granting to them a limited
monopoly of control over the use of those works.
I believe the biggest problem with the current copyright laws are that they seem to have forgotten the "limited" term. As someone else pointed out the copyright law keeps getting changed to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. So old Walt's heirs have the ultimate perpetual wealth generator protected by US law.
How about telling us how you propose to get rid of money.
I believe money exists because it serves a purpose. It allows me to have wealth without having real property.
With 6 billions souls on this planet, do you think we can give everybody 1 acre of usable land (min needed to provide vegan diet for 1 individual per year). Are there 6 billion acres in the world available to support no chemical, natural fertilizer growing. Maybe, but I doubt it, but can we get the everybody to shift around to the right place even if there is?
Well actually I make a living at this and I can't give away what I produce at work (nor am I advocating that I should have this right) because my employer actually owns what I produce. Well unless of course they pay me to modify something that has been GPLed.
Hmm. I thought RMS always argued that you should only get paid for working, not for owning an idea. I believe that O'Reilly has argued that the original copyright law was a better compromise and that people deserve to make a living for a reasonable limited time. I would guess more along the lines of Thomas Jefferson's arguments about copyright.
But doesn't this tool encourage wanton, gratuitous sex and violence. No longer will a director have any chance of saying no, this is a family oriented movie and I don't need any wiggle to improve the thematic presentation of the work. The Hollywood types will just say we can film two versions and we can let the parents choose.
Also Hollywood has been making multiple versions of films since at least the '50s. I saw two scenes from a '50s film about an alcholic woman. The scenes depicted the morning after. In the American version her makeup, hair, and nightgown are perfect. In the European version, her makeup is smeared, her hair is a mess, and one of her breasts is hanging out of her torn nightgown. To me one scene really shows the effects of alcholism, the other doesn't.
To me this duality shows a problem we had/have in the US. We don't want to face reality, even when we watch a film trying to expose us to it.
So would my young son be focusing more on the woman's breast then understand the image, yes, but at least I could help him to understand what the scene is depicting. But a daughter would understand that she wouldn't want to wind up like that. And I as their parent will choose when they watched that film, but of course I can't because the European version isn't licensed for viewing in the US.
But at least it is less drastic then what the Taliban did to the statues. We have our own Taliban in the US by way of Pat Robertson and his ilk. Maybe with this type of device, we can say, look you don't like it, don't destroy it, just put yer blinders on and ignore it.
The ratings system was designed to allow us Americans the chance to see something besides the Sound of Music. The old system we had amounted to censorship. Now if you just want to see tits and ass get the Playboy or Spice channels. If you want to see artsy tits and ass watch sundance and the Independant Film Channel.
Actually this reminded me of the Star Trek sex sound file. Now I can edit scenes together to make that PG movie into a R. I can really get the Cleavers to talk about being a little rough on the beaver last nite. Damn. Is there anything out there now that lets me control how the DVDs are played. This sounds like fun.
Well how about you don't rent or buy movies that contain material you don't want to see or hear. I just don't get people that want watch something that offends them. Just find movies you can enjoy without changing them.
Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
It was government regulations that forced car makers to install seat belts. It was government regulations that made manufactures produce safer cars. If was government regulations that increased the food safety in the US. It was governmetn regulations that increased the safety of medicine in the US.
I believe government has the right and responsibility to protect me from others. I'm not saying I'm not responsible, but more that the world is so complex that I as an individual can not know enough to protect myself from everybody.
Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
...but imho no one really know's what's going on in economics and it's all oversimplified bull anyway;)
I believe this to be the major truth of the 21st century. Nobody really understands the global economy. No one can control or understand the US ecomony like Morgan did at the turn of the century. Any attempt at overall control will ultimately fail or make things worse. I believe this is the major lesson we should learn from the collapes of the Soviet Union. That centralized government decision that attempt to control the economy will fail.
I wonder if Linux is it's own threat. Maybe, just maybe the MS marketing droids were getting too smug. Maybe the marketing people needed something, anything to rally the troops around. The perpetual enemy. Linux may never really be a threat to MS, but as long as it looks like a threat, MS can use it to rally its work force. How else do you motivate a work force where a large percentage are worth several millions?
Telephone support can and does work. It works to the level you pay for. I have been using Oracle software and their support for 6 years now. I have had support at their Bronze and Silver level. And there is a difference. In one case I had to provide support for one of our customers onsite and used their Oracle support level at Platinum. Believe me, if you pay for it you can get fantastic support. I had access 24/7 to highly trained, knowledgable, gung-ho experts. Again if your willing to pay for it, excellent support is there.
It is my belief that government contracts that in effect said if you want to win this contract don't use IBM equipment (or clones). A number of businesses then started using bidding DEC equipment, even when big iron would have been a better choice.
It was always my understanding the IBM didn't give it away, but that they let it slip away because they didn't think PCs would take off. I had read somewhere that IBM wishes they had kept IP rights to the hardware design and it wasn't until the PC/XT was released that they got a trademark (or was that PC/AT...)
Why is the program 90% for 1/2 the project duration?
Simple. The estimates where overly optimistic and the programmers know the schedule. So on every weekly status they show progress that exactly matches the prediction until they reach the 90% point. Then it freezes at 90% until they really get to the 90% completion.
The common joke was the last 10% takes 90% of the time.
If you're bidding on a goverment contract, you sure do. The irony is that when you bid what it will actually cost you lose the contract. If you bid what the customer wants you win. Then you just hope the customer really wants the system and will keep paying for it and accept the overruns. Which eventually costs the customer more then if they had been realistic in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If I don't want to use Passport, then I will have to choose online games that don't require it. Thats life.
p.s. Some businesses also won't accept travelers checks.
I like companies that only charge for their current version and make previous versions available for free. I believe this is good for the consumer and it pushes companies to release upgrades that fix major problems and/or provide significant improvements. Why? Because they are competing with their own free software.
But the question is does the government have a right to know who I am at its will, or only when there is a reasonable belief I have broken a law. It seems to me that the government is trying to make me identify myself even when there is no belief I have commmited a crime.
When people complain about dishonest politicians they almost always exclude their own representives. Remember all politics are local.
The main thing I fear about this centralized database is all the civil servent drones needed to run it. I fear the bored civil servant running the software, more then some MIB scenario.
Also remember it is illegal to lie to a Federal employee. But it is real hard to prove I deliberately filed out that form incorrectly. Misspell your name, transpose a number or two. Verifying this large of a database won't be trivial. Look the IRS can't track the false number of dependants people were claiming on thier 1040s from year to year until they required a SSN. After that the population of the US dropped a little. Just remember to be consistent in your false information.
Larry has already stated that the software is free, but maintenance isn't. The difference is about 90%,that is if the 1st year license was $100,000 then the 2nd year maintenance is $10,000. Maintence includes free upgrades. So my question is how much is the maintenance for this free software?
If you can switch between RDBMs so trivially then you have not optimized your queries. All RDBMs vendors extend SQL to allow you to optimize your queries to work with their database engine. For instance Oracle allows you to put in hints, also Oracle had a bug where certain embedded comments crashed the parser but SQL Server, MySQL, etc, work just fine. PostgreSQL has a slightly different implementation of aliases then Oracle and on and on and on. So yes, if you implement a trivial database you can switch between all the vendors in a trivial manner. But when have hundreds of different queries that are joining multiple tables and searching through millions of records, you better be optimizing to the Vendors implementation.
Hmm. AIDS research and software for the masses. I just don't see the connection. Actually anybody can use the results of AIDS research paid for by the US government. I don't see any argument or proof that the US government developed the drugs and then gave those formulas to private companies. It seems to me the drug companies took the basic research and developed the drugs and are taking the finicial risks (lawsuits and such).
I believe it is silly to trust RMS. He claims that his exercise of power is good, but everybody elses exercise of power is bad. Maybe it is, but I don't have the freedom to do what I want with GPLed software. And RMS has shown that not only will he try and enforce the GPL, he has tried to make people give ownership of software they've created to the FSF. I don't trust benovelent dictators.
The original purpose of copyright law was to encourage people to make public their knowledge, knowing they could profit exclusively for a limited time. This knowledge would then become public domain. The problem know is this limited time keeps getting extended. That is what O'Reilly is arguing.
Your last argument about religion is just plain stupid. O'Reilly is not saying we should destroy knowledge. He is saying we need to keep working on methods that will make more knowledge available. Look to ACT and how they release GNAT. They control the source until the point they are ready to release a stable version. You are free to change that source and to make suggestions on how to make it better. They also sell support where they will release specific patches and early fixes to you before the next release. These patches and fixes will be released to the public. Some people don't like this, but it works to get out a stable Ada compiler and makes my employer happy, knowing that they can get fixes now, not when somebody in the world decides to fix it.
I believe the biggest problem with the current copyright laws are that they seem to have forgotten the "limited" term. As someone else pointed out the copyright law keeps getting changed to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. So old Walt's heirs have the ultimate perpetual wealth generator protected by US law.
I believe money exists because it serves a purpose. It allows me to have wealth without having real property.
With 6 billions souls on this planet, do you think we can give everybody 1 acre of usable land (min needed to provide vegan diet for 1 individual per year). Are there 6 billion acres in the world available to support no chemical, natural fertilizer growing. Maybe, but I doubt it, but can we get the everybody to shift around to the right place even if there is?
Well actually I make a living at this and I can't give away what I produce at work (nor am I advocating that I should have this right) because my employer actually owns what I produce. Well unless of course they pay me to modify something that has been GPLed.
Hmm. I thought RMS always argued that you should only get paid for working, not for owning an idea. I believe that O'Reilly has argued that the original copyright law was a better compromise and that people deserve to make a living for a reasonable limited time. I would guess more along the lines of Thomas Jefferson's arguments about copyright.
But doesn't this tool encourage wanton, gratuitous sex and violence. No longer will a director have any chance of saying no, this is a family oriented movie and I don't need any wiggle to improve the thematic presentation of the work. The Hollywood types will just say we can film two versions and we can let the parents choose.
Also Hollywood has been making multiple versions of films since at least the '50s. I saw two scenes from a '50s film about an alcholic woman. The scenes depicted the morning after. In the American version her makeup, hair, and nightgown are perfect. In the European version, her makeup is smeared, her hair is a mess, and one of her breasts is hanging out of her torn nightgown. To me one scene really shows the effects of alcholism, the other doesn't.
To me this duality shows a problem we had/have in the US. We don't want to face reality, even when we watch a film trying to expose us to it.
So would my young son be focusing more on the woman's breast then understand the image, yes, but at least I could help him to understand what the scene is depicting. But a daughter would understand that she wouldn't want to wind up like that. And I as their parent will choose when they watched that film, but of course I can't because the European version isn't licensed for viewing in the US.
But at least it is less drastic then what the Taliban did to the statues. We have our own Taliban in the US by way of Pat Robertson and his ilk. Maybe with this type of device, we can say, look you don't like it, don't destroy it, just put yer blinders on and ignore it.
The ratings system was designed to allow us Americans the chance to see something besides the Sound of Music. The old system we had amounted to censorship. Now if you just want to see tits and ass get the Playboy or Spice channels. If you want to see artsy tits and ass watch sundance and the Independant Film Channel.
Actually this reminded me of the Star Trek sex sound file. Now I can edit scenes together to make that PG movie into a R. I can really get the Cleavers to talk about being a little rough on the beaver last nite. Damn. Is there anything out there now that lets me control how the DVDs are played. This sounds like fun.
Well how about you don't rent or buy movies that contain material you don't want to see or hear. I just don't get people that want watch something that offends them. Just find movies you can enjoy without changing them.
It was government regulations that forced car makers to install seat belts. It was government regulations that made manufactures produce safer cars. If was government regulations that increased the food safety in the US. It was governmetn regulations that increased the safety of medicine in the US.
I believe government has the right and responsibility to protect me from others. I'm not saying I'm not responsible, but more that the world is so complex that I as an individual can not know enough to protect myself from everybody.
I believe this to be the major truth of the 21st century. Nobody really understands the global economy. No one can control or understand the US ecomony like Morgan did at the turn of the century. Any attempt at overall control will ultimately fail or make things worse. I believe this is the major lesson we should learn from the collapes of the Soviet Union. That centralized government decision that attempt to control the economy will fail.
I wonder if Linux is it's own threat. Maybe, just maybe the MS marketing droids were getting too smug. Maybe the marketing people needed something, anything to rally the troops around. The perpetual enemy. Linux may never really be a threat to MS, but as long as it looks like a threat, MS can use it to rally its work force. How else do you motivate a work force where a large percentage are worth several millions?
Or drive up to Lake Arrowhead or Big Bear. Lots of mountains around LA where you can get up over 7000' MSL.
Telephone support can and does work. It works to the level you pay for. I have been using Oracle software and their support for 6 years now. I have had support at their Bronze and Silver level. And there is a difference. In one case I had to provide support for one of our customers onsite and used their Oracle support level at Platinum. Believe me, if you pay for it you can get fantastic support. I had access 24/7 to highly trained, knowledgable, gung-ho experts. Again if your willing to pay for it, excellent support is there.
It is my belief that government contracts that in effect said if you want to win this contract don't use IBM equipment (or clones). A number of businesses then started using bidding DEC equipment, even when big iron would have been a better choice.
It was always my understanding the IBM didn't give it away, but that they let it slip away because they didn't think PCs would take off. I had read somewhere that IBM wishes they had kept IP rights to the hardware design and it wasn't until the PC/XT was released that they got a trademark (or was that PC/AT...)
Simple. The estimates where overly optimistic and the programmers know the schedule. So on every weekly status they show progress that exactly matches the prediction until they reach the 90% point. Then it freezes at 90% until they really get to the 90% completion.
The common joke was the last 10% takes 90% of the time.
If you're bidding on a goverment contract, you sure do. The irony is that when you bid what it will actually cost you lose the contract. If you bid what the customer wants you win. Then you just hope the customer really wants the system and will keep paying for it and accept the overruns. Which eventually costs the customer more then if they had been realistic in the first place.